E

Since you named me, I want to respond directly.  Claire, you have a habit of treating “AIPAC” as a magic word that explains away every political setback. Lost support? AIPAC. Criticism? AIPAC. Voters disagree? AIPAC. You just suggested that undisclosed funding behind Real Fight NYC was tied to “pro-Israel” interests because I donated to your opponent. It wasn't. The PAC was funded by labor unions, a correction even Ryan Grim felt compelled to make. That is the problem with conspiracy-minded politics. The conclusion comes first, the evidence comes later, and reality is expected to fit the narrative rather than the other way around. People who pride themselves on fighting prejudice should be especially careful about prejudging others. This isn't a politics of substance or depth. It isn't even original. It is the same shallow conspiracy politics used by people across the political spectrum when they lack facts, evidence, or a more convincing argument. Frankly, it’s disappointing to see. Democrats spent years criticizing Donald Trump for weaponizing conspiracy theories whenever reality did not go his way. We should not be adopting the same playbook simply because it is politically convenient. Conspiracy thinking is corrosive whether it comes from the right or the left. Not every Jewish organization is AIPAC. Not every donor is part of a coordinated plot. And not every candidate who struggles politically is the victim of some grand scheme. Yet Claire, you seem determined to flatten every disagreement into the same simplistic story. The irony is that people who claim to oppose exclusion often seem perfectly comfortable treating Jewish participation in politics as uniquely suspect when it becomes politically convenient. You can disagree with Israel. You can criticize AIPAC. What you cannot do is suggest that Jewish donors, Jewish organizations, or people who hold different views should somehow be excluded from the democratic process. The problem may be that governing and politics are more complicated than you want them to be. Serious issues require serious analysis. They require the ability to distinguish between different organizations, different motivations, and different people. Not everything fits neatly into a slogan. I am proud to have supported Democratic candidates across America, and I will continue doing so. No amount of name-calling, conspiracy theories, or attempts to delegitimize my participation in the political process will change that. As for this race, I am happy to support your opponent because I believe he would bring the judgment, seriousness, and effectiveness that New Yorkers deserve from their representative in Congress. It is really that simple. No conspiracy required.

Since you named me, I want to respond directly.  Claire, you have a habit of treating “AIPAC” as a magic word that explains away every political setback. Lost support? AIPAC. Criticism? AIPAC. Voters disagree? AIPAC. You just suggested that undisclosed funding behind Real Fight NYC was tied to “pro-Israel” interests because I donated to your opponent. It wasn't. The PAC was funded by labor unions, a correction even Ryan Grim felt compelled to make. That is the problem with conspiracy-minded politics. The conclusion comes first, the evidence comes later, and reality is expected to fit the narrative rather than the other way around. People who pride themselves on fighting prejudice should be especially careful about prejudging others. This isn't a politics of substance or depth. It isn't even original. It is the same shallow conspiracy politics used by people across the political spectrum when they lack facts, evidence, or a more convincing argument. Frankly, it’s disappointing to see. Democrats spent years criticizing Donald Trump for weaponizing conspiracy theories whenever reality did not go his way. We should not be adopting the same playbook simply because it is politically convenient. Conspiracy thinking is corrosive whether it comes from the right or the left. Not every Jewish organization is AIPAC. Not every donor is part of a coordinated plot. And not every candidate who struggles politically is the victim of some grand scheme. Yet Claire, you seem determined to flatten every disagreement into the same simplistic story. The irony is that people who claim to oppose exclusion often seem perfectly comfortable treating Jewish participation in politics as uniquely suspect when it becomes politically convenient. You can disagree with Israel. You can criticize AIPAC. What you cannot do is suggest that Jewish donors, Jewish organizations, or people who hold different views should somehow be excluded from the democratic process. The problem may be that governing and politics are more complicated than you want them to be. Serious issues require serious analysis. They require the ability to distinguish between different organizations, different motivations, and different people. Not everything fits neatly into a slogan. I am proud to have supported Democratic candidates across America, and I will continue doing so. No amount of name-calling, conspiracy theories, or attempts to delegitimize my participation in the political process will change that. As for this race, I am happy to support your opponent because I believe he would bring the judgment, seriousness, and effectiveness that New Yorkers deserve from their representative in Congress. It is really that simple. No conspiracy required.

Zohran Mamdani was asked if he was invited to Taylor Swift & Travis Kelce’s wedding and if he’s going: “No and no, [but] I wish them a lovely wedding. I’ll listen to ‘Only The Young’ at home on my own.”

You got to be kidding me, he went to Israel, an apartheid state, in 2014 (!!) no less. Who funded that propaganda trip?

Your daily reminder that Medicare for All would save $650 billion and 68,000 lives each and every year, per CBO and the Yale School of Public Health.